( 1 ) ON State government notifying the abandoned area to an extent of Ac. 16-23 cents in Pamapalli (v) District as being available for re-grant on 22-12-1988 under Section 59 of the mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the petitioner in WP No. 14774/1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") submitted its application on 23-1-1989 for grant of mining lease for lime stone mineral over an extent of Ac. 14. 93 cents. Respondent No. 5 and two others also made their applications for grant of mining lease on the said date i. e. , 23-1-1989. On evaluation of the applications made by the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and two others, the State government in its Memo No. l41/m. III/91-3 dated 28-9-1991 directed the petitioner to file mining plan duly approved by the Indian bureau of Mines for an extent of Ac. 14. 93 cents in S. Nos. 137/1, 174/1 and 176/1 in parnapalli Village for a period of 20 years within six months from the date of receipt of the communication. The Respondent No. 5 and two others filed revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and development) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of mineral Concession Rules, 1960 questioning the rejection of their applications by the state Government through their Order no. l41/miii/91-2 dated 11-6-1993 before the first respondent, which was allowed on 14-12-1993 setting aside the order of rejection of the applications made by them with a direction to the second respondent to consider afresh all applications in accordance with law. On allowing the revision petition, third Government after evaluating the claims of all applicants as per Section 11 (3) of the Act recommended the application made by the petitioner for grant of mining lease through his proceedings dated 7-7-1994. The second respondent in its letter dated 19-8-1994 requested the first respondent for its approval as contemplated under Section 5 (1) of the Act. The first respondent sought clarification through its letter dated 19-12-1994, which was duly clarified by the second respondent in its letter dated 20-1-1995, On receipt of approval by the first respondent vide its letter dated 13-6-1995 the second respondent granted mining lease in favour of the petitioner in G. O. Ms. No. 171 Industries and Commerce (M. III) Department, dated 4-11-1995. Mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner by the second respondent on 28-11-1995 on deposit of required amount, to which fifth respondent is also a signatory. On complying with all formalities, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 28-11-1995 authorizing the petitioner to commence the mining operations by delivering possession of the site. Since then the petitioner is conducting mining operations. The Respondent No. 5 and two others filed revision petition challenging the granting of mining lease in favour of the petitioner by the State government in G. O. Ms. No. 171 dated 4-11-1995 before the first respondent. The first respondent by its order dated 14-8-1998 set aside the grant of mining lease in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the State government for providing an opportunity of hearing and take into account the observations made by it in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Final Order No. 165/93 dated 14-12-1993. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 26221/98 and obtained interim orders to conduct mining operations in respect of the area which was leased out to it. Aggrieved by the interim orders passed in the said writ petition, the fifth respondent carried the matter in WA no. 495/99, which was disposed of along with WP. No. 26221/98 directing the second respondent to reconsider the matter as directed by the first respondent observing that there was no lease in favour of the petitioner, which was subsequently clarified in Review WPMP No. 31156/99 in WP no. 26221/98 dated 12-2-2001 preferred by the petitioner. In the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of